“It’s also true, as we well know, that there were a few cruel families who allowed themselves to be carried away by their own incurable inhumanity and went so far as to employ the services of the maphia to get rid of the miserable human remains […] (84)
The natural world has the so-called ‘force of nature,’ which is impossible to go against as a human being. Death is the most extreme example of the force of nature. However, the development of science tries to reach its step to overcome death. This book, [Death with Interruptions], made me doubt the overheated race of science and trying to overcome the force of nature.
“The following day, no one died. This fact, being absolutely contrary to life’s rules, provoked enormous and, in the circumstances, perfectly justifiable anxiety in people’s minds […]” (1)
Throughout human history, we have tried to overcome death, and that is how science (especially medical science) has been developed. Everyone is instinctively afraid of death, and we all want to push it further as much as possible. But what if the death is actually stopped? At least in the book, lots of chaotic consequences occurred. Church became meaningless since there was no resurrection; the hospital experienced a plethora of patients; insurance companies, undertakers and all the societies, in general, were thrown pell-mell.
“[…] we are not here just for the good times, […] we are here, too, for the bad times and the worst, when they have become little more than a sinking rag that there is no point in washing.” (72)
But the biggest problem was the patients themselves and their families, who were suffering from the step behind the death. They had to endure the painful moment (and the actual pain for patients), just because the death was removed from nature. It reminded me of a hospice and DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). Is it all worth treating patients who have no hope of being revived? Who is going to care for their family, or even themselves?
“[…] therefore, resign yourselves and die without protest because it will get you nowhere […] (110)
Death is inevitable, although it is dreadful and hard to deal with. Human beings have been trying to avoid death as much as possible, and we will keep trying it. But at the point where we can overcome most of the common diseases, we also have to think about the ethical question of keeping people away from death, even when they suffer from unfathomable pain and agony.
Is it really the right way to keep patients who suffer from pain alive?
“Death is inevitable, although it is dreadful and hard to deal with.“ Well… in the novel there is someone who manages to avoid death. And how was the society of that small country transformed once human death has returned to its daily chores? What new questions could we ask ourselves from these intermittencies?
Reading your question, I think that has to do a lot with the considerations of morals and respect of patient wishes. It is unequivocal that doctors have a responsibility of ensuring patients are treated and thereby having an extension of life, but they can also be met with a dilemma when patients have legal documentations against doctors saving them such as DNRs (do not resuscitate) or termination of life through MAID. I think it’s hard to think about wanting to let your patient die because your goal of saving or extending a life is rather objected, but again, a lot of morals and legality comes into play which would be that a doctor would respect their patient wishes. I cannot imagine the suffering of pain that the patients go through, but I sympathize that the pain and suffrage has gone to an extent which they would resort to acquiring a DNR or MAID.